Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September, 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Though I am not familiar with the variant spellings in all English-speaking countries, I am not aware of "Independant" being an acceptable spelling. Is there any way we can change the title to "Independent"? Thanks. Rlvaughn 04:24, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a typo that I carried though. I've already moved the page. Thanks! UtherSRG 04:35, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That was a simple fix! Don't know why I didn't think of that. Great job. Rlvaughn 04:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the redlinks

I'm removing the list of redlinks. Those organizations shouldn't have articles, probably, though there may be one or two exceptions. Mangojuice^talk 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UUA IAo stubs

Note: some text has been taken from User talk:HellaNorCal for the sake of clarity in this discussion. HellaNorCal 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently, three articles in this list have been nominated for deletion by User:JChap2007. One idea which came up in one of the article deletions (CUUPs, the result of which was a strong Keep) was to merge the articles here, at UUIAos. I think that's a good idea. Instead of having a red link list, we can have a grouping of section headers, one section per organization. Eventually, some might be ready for their own article/stub (like CUUPs), and then they can be branched off. Thoughts? HellaNorCal 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, this response was taken from User talk:HellaNorCal, which is not necessarily how I would have chosen to respond to the specific points that HellaNorCal/Canaen has made above. JChap2007 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to merge them into a list of such organizations. I believe this is problemmatic for reasons I explain in AfD. Such a list seems to be likely to be deleted for the same reason that the stubs are so problematic: lack of sources about the organization. Some editors would no doubt also feel that such a list is crufty and basically just a linkfarm. Rather than waste your time on this, might I suggest that you work to add knowledge (rather than just stubs with links) to WP by expanding those stub articles whose subjects are covered in reliable sources. For example, our article on Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, which is discussed in a small number of books [1]. Specifically, "A Community of Witches: Contemporary Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft in the United States" by Helen A. Berger seems from the index to have some information about the organization. Other books referenced on that page may also be useful. This could be turned into a nice article. JChap2007 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As you may know, this article has had an AfD, the result of which was keep. Rather than simply deleting these stubs and the content along with them from the Wikipedia, we could simply consolidate it; this is somewhat of a compromise. We can develop the stubs on a consolidated page (which already exists), and if they become ready in time, they may be branched out into their own articles. It appears that the CUUPs article may be ready for such branching out already; this shows promise for the other organizations as well.

You can see this idea in practice at Scotland, where almost every section, even subsections, have "Main article:" tags; most of these started out as just page sections, and have gone on to blossom into quite decent articles. HellaNorCal 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me respond to the points you make in both of your above posts, as my above comment was copied from your talk page and wasn't really in response to the points you were making. I can see now that this was closed as "no consensus." Nevertheless, I am one of those people who doesn't like multiple noms for the same article, even when the result was no consensus. However, not everybody shares my sentiments in this. I would like the CUUP article to stand separately. The idea of merging some of the stubs here may have some merit. The problem is that the many of the organizations mentioned here are not covered in reliable sources. In addition, we don't want the article to turn into a link farm. I would suggest it might make more sense for our readers if we discussed these organizations at logical places in Unitarian Universalist Association and Unitarian Universalism. (Although I do not think Unitarian Jihad is all that necessary). This would eliminate the need for all the substubs that litter the Unitarian Universalism category. It would also save the content in the other articles, which look like they will be deleted. JChap2007 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Unitarian Universalist Association is a reliable source about itself. Organizations on this list can accurately be described as recognized by the UUA Board of Trustees--there is really no better source possible for basic descriptions of the purpose and mission of these organizations. In order for any of them to warrant their own article, however, I think we would like to seek reliable secondary sources that show the organization has warranted some discussion outside of the UU church itself. I suppose the question for anyone considering building up this article on the various affiliates is what are you going to achieve here that is better than a simple external link to the official UUA list? -MrFizyx 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, in my view publications like The Journal of UU History and UU World would also count as [WP:RS|reliable sources] on these organizations. -MrFizyx 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this list as a whole is notable as it defines the structure of Unitarian Universalism, a major US and Canadian religious faith. That having been said, not all items in the list are equally important. Some deserve their own articles, some deserve a paragraph in this article, and some just deserve being listed. But I agree that a list of mostly red links doesn't look very good. –Shoaler (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So how about this: Those organizations which already have articles have their content merged into this page (excepting CUUPS), and we add a section at the bottom for the rest of the list? As sources come about, they may be moved up to having sections of their own. Something along these lines? The other option I see is making sections for all, and putting the section stub template in each redlinked article until they get content; this one doesn't seem to be an attractive prospect. Outside of these, if we turned only certain organizations into sections, how else would we decided what got turned into sections with content, and which waws kept as a redlink or removed entirely? HellaNorCal 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A note for CUUPs: I'm thinking we move a sentence or two over here, and give it the "main article" template at the top of the section. HellaNorCal 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead and do it? Or maybe you're trying to build some consensus before spending much time on this... -MrFizyx 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)